"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> shared_buffers again was 32MB so all the data was in memory.
> The case where all the data is in memory is simply not interesting. The cost
> of TOAST is the random access seeks it causes. You seem to be intentionally
> avoiding testing the precise thing we're interested in.
Also, something's not right with these results. 100,000 tuples --even if all
they contain is a toast pointer-- won't fit on a single page. And the toast
tables should vary in size depending on how many toast chunks are created.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2007-05-31 09:11:30|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make large sequential scans and
VACUUMs work in a limited-size|
|Previous:||From: Grant Finnemore||Date: 2007-05-31 08:59:14|
|Subject: Backend crash during explain|